It really bugs you not to know right? Why don't you ask dpReview (since it's THE bible)? They are the only that can repeat the reference test with a different camera setting, and post it for everyone to see...

Quote:

My recomendation to you is first, download Phil's pictures and print them. If you still like them, then take a flash to the camera store and snap several pictures @ the standard setting then change the camera to soft(-), then again play with the contrast wheel from (0 to -3). Take the pictures home then again print them.

I just confirmed it again today, and every D7's owners are welcome to try: Set the camera on soft(-), contrast(0 to - whatever) and take a picture of the blue sky and see that one doesn't get the same result that dpReview posted! Maybe someone will be even nice enough to show our friend here the light, but then we've also known this all along!

With due respect for our desire for peace, there is a crucial point that you make (and many others have raised this point) that seems to me to be in error:

Quote:

Someone said:

"You seem to believe that the amount of noise present in the Minolta files is also present at some point in the processing of the images of all similar cameras. "

Yes, if they use the same CCD (and a number of simmilair 5mp cams do), it simply has to be. Thats a fact, not an opinion.

As I understand it, other components, including the lens, can also contribute to noise. Under your theory, the raw files from the Minolta and the Nikon should have the same amount of noise. I've never heard that there's much noise in Nikon raw files. Have you?

I can't judge your results, since you don't post them, but I've looked at the images at imaging-resource.com. Check out the 7Hi's contrast portrait (the first one on the samples page). The main version is shot with contrast turned all the way down, and there are other versions tweaked every which way. It has plenty of noise, they all have plenty. Adjusting the settings might help in some situations to some degree, but it obviously doesn't really fix the problem.

Why do you continually make unfounded assumptions about my motives, beliefs and feelings? Try sticking to what I say, instead of your projections onto it. I respect Phil's reviews, but I don't trust everything he says, or think his reviews are best in every way. I do believe what I see, though. Phil presents evidence. You don't.

You will never believe us over-zealous Minolta owners (regardless of what we've already posted, or will post). Can you please take a flash, go to the store and take a picture of a blue sky with the setting I enumerated, and then tell us if it looks anything like what dpReview posted! How hard can it be? Why do we have to prove anything that all of us owners already know? You're the person in doubt, prove it for yourself! ... and don't forget to print it as well. While you're @ it ask the sale person for an older D7, put a microdrive in it, and with a brand new set of NiMh battery, hold the shutter down until it almost fill the microdrive (convincing yourself that it's not a battery hog either).

Not to defend fotograafdigi, but lens do not contribute to the noise, it is a passive device! It could make horrendous CA though which fotograafdigi have already pointed out... The only noise source is the CCD and how well it's low ESR decoupling caps are!!! http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/...iseSources.pdf

You're well over your head here as well:

Quote:

I've never heard that there's much noise in Nikon raw files

ie the processed raw files are noise free, not the raw, there's no picture to be seen in raw, in fact it'll be quite incomprehensible and one'll need both a computer and a piece of software to decode (and de-noise) it!

May be we don't own as many digital cameras as Phil, but some of us here do design quite a few MPEG, DENC, high-speed video and RF circuits in our spare time, and we are quite well verse in most matter of electronics... Have it ever occured to you, that may be you have read too many myths (that I've rightfully point out earlier), and be so myopic and fail to see the truth? May be you haven't learned from the Enron, WorlComm, Global Crossing etc? How is dpReview any different from thoses security firms in that one analyze stocks, and the other cameras? May be they're in for the fun like some of us are having on theses forums discussing/helping other hobbyists. BTW theses security firms also posted very convincing data on the companies they researched, it their profession after all. May be you should have listened to your friends instead...

Anyway it's now a beautiful morning with a bright sunshine, let go and snap some pictures of that beautiful blue sky!

It's time to cut it out. We're all here to help each other, just try me... I did say on multiple occasions already that the 5700 is an excellent camera and several of it features that I would miss as well.

I can do without such patronizing commemts, especially since they're based on your own misunderstandings.

The meaning of my statement was obvious, that the images shot in raw in a Nikon are less noisy than those shot in raw in a Minolta, before any noise removal in either case. That doesn't fit your theory.

The Kodak article, which is about an "ideal" camera, doesn't say the lens and other factors don't contribute to noise in real life. Lenses collect but don't completely filter IR light, which might contribute by heating the pixels. And electronic sources of heat in camera can definitely contribute. The relative balance of color transmitted by a lens can contribute in that some colors are more prone to noise than others in a given CCD. Wouldn't be surprised if how clean the power supply is makes a difference. No doubt there are many possible contributors. Consider this bit of info from Phil's review, for example:

Quote:

While both cameras (probably) use the same brand of 2/3" CCD sensor the Coolpix 5700 uses a CYGM colour filter array, the DiMAGE 7Hi a more conventional RGB colour filter array. This can explain the difference in the distribution of chrominance noise.

The fact that the filter arrays are different might affect both the amount of noise (by requiring more or less amplification of the signals for particular colors, for instance) and the pattern of it. Wouldn't be at all surprising if a given CCD works better noise-wise with one array than another.

I live 60 miles from the nearest camera store. I'm not about to drive an hour each way to try out your experiment, especially when there are plenty of good samples on the web. Just post your shots if you think they're important. As I already pointed out, images from other sites, including those shot with lowest contrast setting, still have plenty of noise. See the imaging-resource.com samples.

Wow :shock:
As a newbie, I must say replies and reponses as these will make anyone a little gun shy! But anyway I did the noise test of a pic I took of the sky with contrast to +3, normal sharpness and color +2. The pic was at 1600x1200 (I belive) and when I zoomed in at 200% - BAM there it was, noise, noise, noise. So today its nice and sunny, and I'm going out on my lunch break and take photos with 2 settings: a)natural color, sharpness soft, contrast 0, color +1, exp. comp. -3, Res. 2560x1920 fine jpeg. b)natural color, sharpness normal, contrast 0, color +1, exp. comp. -3, Res. 2560x1920 fine jpeg. Anyone who wants the photos (probaly Nikon owners) I will Email it to them or they can view it on my pbase account.(but to save pbase bandwidth, I would rather Email it.) Both photos will be straight from the camera, no colorspace conversion, no editing, no nothing. Was the noise in my first pic, sure was. Did I see it when printed at 4"x6" - nope. If I printed 8"x10 or larger would I see it, I think so - if I looked for it. This way Nikon owner can see if altering camera settings affects this noise, and so can I because I don't know the answer - but I guess I'm going to find out!!!!!